Will Tea Party, GOP establishment be 'mending fences' to win Senate in November?

Fox News ^ | September 20, 2014

[Din Maker]

After a long, unapologetic effort to defeat Tea Party candidates in GOP primaries, the Washington establishment will likely need Tea Party voters in November to help swing several tight Senate races and win control of the upper chamber.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Friday dismissed the notion that party voters are not united behind their candidates. “Can you point to a race … ? It’s a false narrative,”

Kevin Broughton, spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots singled out a few races, particularly in Kansas and Mississippi, but suggested his troops will rally for the general election.

Broughton said they will focus on such grassroots efforts as get-out-the-vote, instead of buying TV or other media spots.

All six Republican senators who faced promising Tea Party-backed challenges won their primaries, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who in March boldly predicted he and the rest of the Washington establishment would “crush” far-right advocacy groups and their candidates.

“I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country,” the five-term Kentucky Republican told The New York Times.

The other wins came in Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Kansas, where the NRSC helped incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts to victory with more than 40,000 phone calls in the final three weeks of his campaign.

In Mississippi, Tea Party-backed candidate Chris McDaniel forced GOP incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran -- who had strong inside-the-beltway financial and grassroots support -- into a runoff to retain his seat.

Politico described the contest as “a flashpoint in the GOP civil war.

[RitaOK]

Seriously?

The GOP has become a plantation for “useful idiots” to park their vote and prop up their “RINOS FOREVER” cult.

The cult is quite opposed to conservatism, conservatives and their candidates, vowing to destroy us.

[RitaOK]

You are absolutely right.

The primaries are theater for the voters, but the outcomes are clearly bought. Conservative candidates are without the big global money, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce, and certainly prey for corrupt media.

Democrats don’t spend a dime against conservatives, because they can depend on the media and the RINOS FOREVER cult to give them the business.

[wastoute]

Love the rice bowl reference. What a gret movie. The Sand Pebbles.

[wastoute]

The wife and I are reading this new book the daughter recommended, “Red Rising”. There is a reference to the president as a tyrant of neccesity. It reminded me of Herodutus’ discussion of the Persian general’s debate over the best form of government. It occurred to me the generals missed one. A form where the “little people” think they live in a free republic but the folks actually running the show know better. Like we have now. Until the sheep look up it works.

[BlackElk]

Actually, GeronL is right on target. Thad Cockroach is a senile old bastard, as corrupt as any ever elected by either party, backed by Haley Boss Hogg Barbour who expects to arrange the appointment of a similarly brain dead corrupt successor to Cockroach as soon as he is re-elected and sworn in for a second term and induced to resign. Keepin’ that Senate seat safe for the interests, don’tcha know!

[BlackElk]

John Browdie:

You don't seem to get the message. Either the GOP-E gets the hell out of the way, nominates candidates actually WORTH VOTING FOR IN THEIR OWN RIGHT (not wusses like Myth Romney) and stop using oceans of Wall Street $$$$ to buy nominations or the GOP loses again and again as often as necessary, you pay higher taxes, and conservatives withhold their votes in order to finish off the corrupt GOP.

The GOP can also show good faith by dumping John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn from leadership in favor of leaders with gonads and who are not attached at the hip to Wall Street.

[BlackElk]

May God have mercy on their souls, then!

[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about three objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

When you write,

A lawless government will not allow itself to be restrained by any civil means. There is no remedy to hold onto our liberty and stop this tyranny by any civil means.

I thought you fit neatly into category (2) above. If I'm mistaken kindly advise if you think we should try or not?

Do you wish to add a fourth category:

(4) It won't work, even in the does work because it will incur "uncivil" resistance so don't bother even trying?

[Colonel_Flagg]

Kevin Broughton thinks HE has troops? Guess again, son.

No damn GOP-E calls me a racist and gets my vote.

[eyedigress]

We should NOT do this ATT. The folks that want to conserve our liberty is not in charge.

I don’t know when this may happen. I fear the time is lost.

[DoughtyOne]

Isn’t that the truth.

We’re terrorists from the day after election day to the middle of October in election years.

Then it’s unity, unity, unity, “...you don’t want the bad Democrat to control things, DO YOU?”

Why should I support them so they can pass amnesty and the rest of the Left’s agenda before the Democrats do?

I’ll support reasoned people. Otherwise, what difference does it make?

I go out and vote, then we get a Roberts. What the hell?

[nathanbedford]

Sounds like Animal Farm.

[GeronL]

This country might not be salvageable. It definitely isn’t going to be saved by a bunch of RINO’s

[DoughtyOne]

Got that right.

IMO, it’s the main reason why we’ve gone so far left.

There’s a principle I’ve learned over time.

The best way to prevent anything good being done, is to put the wrong guy in the position that would oversee it getting done.

Conservatism doesn’t advance because they always put a guy who isn’t a supporter of Conservatism.

The Dems couldn’t hurt us one fourth as bad as our leaders the GOPe and the RNC do.

[INVAR]

Please read carefully.

I never said or implied don’t bother trying. That is what you are reading into it.

There is simply no thought being given to implementing whatever is ratified upon a lawless government that will (as already evidenced) undoubtably ignore, disregard and rule as ‘unConstitutional’ whatever is ratified.

I’m cautioning those who cite Amendment V as a civil recourse against tyranny.

You cannot stop a tyranny via civil means, no matter what laws and amendments we pass. I do not know what is so difficult to understand about that fact of history and human nature.

Lawless tyrants and their corrupt systems must be removed from power before laws limiting a tyrannical government can carry the full force of moral and just law.

If you think those lawless now in power are going to just give up their stranglehold without a bloody conflict, you have no understanding of the reality we now live in.

[Deagle]

Let’s say NO!

To me, it has no longer mattered who gets elected. The difference is so miniscule that it matters not. The system is so corrput that it probably can’t be salvaged.

Both parties unfortunately have become so corrupt that the general population has become either bought, uninformed, or disinterested (and counted on by politicians).

That leaves about 70% of us without representation.

What happens when that kind of non government involvement happens to such a large portion of the educated public?

Well, history tells us that eventually things change - it does matter where as both speed and humanity seem to be part of the equation. In this case both will probably apply.

Either way, things will change and may or may not be due to violent reaction of the people. Only when and where seem to be the question these days.

[nathanbedford]

Perhaps you'd like to refine your Maxim a bit upon consideration of the fall of the Soviet Empire which changed the system radically, although not perfectly and not permanently, without bloody conflict. One might also consider the devolution of the Soviet satellite states at the time.

The recent election in Scotland might well of gone the other way and there is no reason to anticipate that violence would've occurred for Britain to hold on to Scotland. One might recall that the British relinquished India without much bloodshed, the bloodshed mostly occurring between Muslims and Hindus. Bloodshed is not always inevitable. One need only consider the wholesale relinquishment of colonies in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s which was done often without violence to question whether violence is inevitable upon changes of power and government. I submit violence is even less likely when the change is associated with reform rather than revolution, when the reformers of a "soft" rather than a" harsh" tyranny.

So my point is, what is your point? Yes there may or may not be resistance and violence if the Article V movement is successful. Therefore?

Violence is always a possibility and I do not concede that it is inevitable in the wake of Article V. Nor do I believe that the possibility, even the inevitability, of violence should deter efforts to reform. Indeed, the absence of reform might well lead to violence.

I ask again, where do you stand on Article V?

[slapshot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsLDzXWUU4

[AdaGray]

Too late for that. Just to get by the election? Let the GOP hang out to dry.

[Theodore R.]

Where the disagreements are minor and in good faith, sure, I’ll consider the lesser of evils when the lesser evil is essentially decent

You must mean Roberts in KS, but with the kinds of voters we have today Roberts is more vulnerable than either McC or Cochran.